EXAMENSARBETE INOM TEKNIK, GRUNDNIVÅ, 15 HP STOCKHOLM, SVERIGE 2018 Identifying effectiveness of different input devices as pointing devices for graphical user interfaces TED KLEIN BERGMAN RONYA BUDAK KTH SKOLAN FÖR ELEKTROTEKNIK OCH DATAVETENSKAP Identifying effectiveness of different input devices as pointing devices for graphical user interfaces Ronya Budak Ted Klein Bergman KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, School of KTH, Royal Institute of Technology, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Department of Media Technology and Interaction Department of Media Technology and Interaction Design Design [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT handhållna enheten. Resultatet tyder på att ritplattan kan vara en As new input devices are introduced to the technological market effektiv pekdon i händerna på en erfaren användare än bevisat här, and an increasing part of the population are familiar with the men för nya användare kan det inte fungera lika bra som usage of digital devices, it may seem difficult to know which datormusen överlag. input devices to aim for when developing new programs and Keywords applications that use graphical interfaces. According to a previous study in this area, the computer mouse was the most preferred and Input device; computer mouse; handheld controller; drawing performed best when tested in speed and accuracy when tablet; comparison; graphical user interface; pointing device. compared to the keyboard and drawing tablet even though the 1. INTRODUCTION keyboard was the device most were familiar with. This paper Graphical user interfaces for computer applications and games are attempted to recreate the study with the exception of testing more mainly focused at providing the user an interface to interact with things, such as number of miss-clicks, distance travelled, graphical components [8]. Doing this usually requires navigating directional changes and time. The keyboard was replaced by a a cursor on a two-dimensional screen and creating some sort of an handheld controller as well. The results were that the mouse event (i.e. clicking/touching), often referred to as a pointing performed best yet again, and proved to be easy to use efficiently device. It’s still possible to navigate with other input devices, such for both new and experienced users. The handheld controller was as a keyboard, but this has been shown to be slow [2, 5]. shown not to be an optimal pointing device, mostly due to it being stuck to a fixed speed and not able to accelerate. It did well in the Today the most used input device for graphical applications is the matter of amount off miss-clicks and directional changes, which computer mouse, but with new technological advances being can be tied to its slow speed. The drawing tablet was well introduced everyday it might be time to consider if another device received by the new users and experienced as more accurate than may work better for these cases. the handheld device. Its results suggest that the drawing tablet could be an efficient pointing device than proven here in the One commonly used device is the handheld controller, that many hands of an experienced user, but for new users it could not prefer to use within computer gaming, but not so much elsewhere. perform as well as the mouse device overall. The less used drawing tablet is mostly used for photo editing and SAMMANFATTNING digital drawing. Are these limited only to their current uses or Eftersom nya inmatningsenheter introduceras på den tekniska could they be better integrated in more common usages? This marknaden och en större del av befolkningen bekantar sig med paper aims to test three input devices, the computer mouse, the användningen av digitala enheter, kan det verka svårt att veta handheld controller and the drawing tablet, to how well they vilka inmatningsenheter man ska rikta sig till när man utvecklar compare against each other in common tasks for graphical user nya program och applikationer som använder grafiskt gränssnitt. interfaces. Enligt en tidigare studie var datormusen den mest föredragna 1.1 Problem definition and purpose enheten och fick bäst resultat inom snabbhet och noggrannhet, jämfört med tangentbordet och ritplattan inom detta område, trots 1.1.1 Research question att tangentbordet var den enhet som de flesta var bekanta med. What is the effectiveness of mouse, handheld controller and Denna undersökning försökte återskapa studien med undantaget drawing tablet within the areas of precision, speed and error att testa flera egenskaper, såsom antal missade klickar, avstånd, proneness in basic graphical user interfaces? byten av färdriktning och tid samt att tangentbordet ersattes av en handhållen kontroller. Resultaten var att musen presterade bäst än 1.1.2 Purpose en gång och visade sig vara lätt att använda effektivt för både nya An earlier article from 1994 by Coll, Richard [3], answered this och erfarna användare. Den handhållna styrenheten visade sig inte question for similar input devices. However, this was done 24 vara en optimal pekdon, främst på grund av att den hade en years ago, and technology and its integration in society has bestämd hastighet och inte kunde accelerera. Det gick bra i fråga changed much since then. Not only are people more affiliated om mängden missade klickar och riktningsförändringar, som kan with this type of technology today, but everyday technology has vara knutna till dess långsamma hastigheten. Ritplattan mottogs developed with an accelerating speed and there are more choices väl av de nya användarna och upplevdes som mer exakt än den of input systems today as well. This research aims to confirm whether their results still holds and to provide useful data which compared to each other in the sense of speed, accuracy, and developers can use when designing graphical user interfaces for preference [3]. one of the specified input devices, and for developers to determine That paper may not be as viable today due to the changes done which input device to focus their application for. within the fields of these devices and due to their integration into modern society. The study conducted in 1994 does not specify the 1.1.2 Delimitation specification of the used input devices, so it’s reasonable to Some changes to the study were made, with the most noticeable assume they used devices that have seen significant changes and one being that the keyboard was not tested and was instead are evidently not an appropriate indication of the modern versions. replaced by the handheld controller. This was due to the keyboard It was believed that the pen would prove to perform better than being significantly slower to use than both mouse and drawing the mouse and keyboard, however it was found that the mouse had tablet, which seems consistent in other research as well [2, 3, 5]. performed best out of the three devices used, despite that only 3 This study does not consider differences in sex either, as this has out of 63 users had used a mouse before. The mouse was also been shown to have no significant difference [3, 6]. most preferred by the testers for general work, but the keyboard This study chose to focus on hand-steered mechanical input was preferred for highly accurate work and the device all the devices, and thus disregard devices such as touchpad, participants were familiar with. eye-tracking, foot controlled devices and others. This was to both Newer studies have been carried out, although these mainly focus compare devices within a common category, but also to reduce on ergonomy/health [7], ease of use [12], or preference the number of devices to test, in order to cut down time in order to perception. Those who focus on the performance of a pointing allow the experiments to not take too long time. device tends to focus on newer technology, such as touch screens. It seems relevant to perform a study focusing on more current devices used today and how effectively they can be used as a 2. BACKGROUND pointing device. In this section the definition and history of the tested input devices In [12], 8 input devices were compared when users played a one will be given, as well as a short description of the experiment versus one game in a 3D-environment, amongst which were a conducted by Coll, Zia and Coll in 1994 [3] and other previous computer mouse and an XBOX gamepad. The mouse and XBOX studies. controller were rated together with 2 other devices easiest to use, and XBOX gamepad was proven one of the most well adapt to 2.1 Computer mouse the test environment. The computer mouse is the first commercially successful analog pointing device. It was invented by Douglas Engelbart of Stanford A study in 2016 [14] evaluated the mouse against handheld Research Center in 1964, and was patented as the X-Y Position controller (among others) both as a pointing device and in the ​ Indicator [13], before getting the more commonly known name perspective of usability and user experience. They concluded that Mouse or Computer Mouse due to the cord looking like the tail of the mouse is still the better of those two as a pointing device and ​ a mouse. [1] in the sense of usability and user experience. The controller performed the worst as a pointing device but was more likeable The mouse has seen many changes since it was originally for game play. introduced and today it is mostly recognized that a mouse has a right and a left button and a scrolling wheel. Earlier it was From a study done 2000 [11], a Mouse, digitising pen, accupoint common to have a mechanical wheel beneath the mouse to detect and trackball were tested against each other as pointing devices in motion, which in modern time been replaced by a laser sensor [9].